The Beyond the Border deal Canada and the U.S. have worked out behind closed doors could have benefitted from more public input.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper calls it “an ambitious agenda.” Brian Mulroney hails it as a “big idea,” akin to the 1988 Canada-U.S. trade deal. It may be nothing quite so grand. But now as then, it’s going to be a hard sell to Canadians who worry that we’re trading away our sovereignty for a mess of economic pottage.

The “Beyond the Border” deal that the Harper government has worked out with U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration behind closed doors over the past 10 months remains an enigma wrapped in a riddle, mere days before the two meet in Washington to unveil the “action plan” to bring about greater continental security and economic integration. That’s not reassuring.

“What do we know? What are we hearing? Zero,” Liberal foreign affairs critic Dominic LeBlanc told the Star on Tuesday. “That’s the problem.” “People have to be worried,” New Democrat trade critic Brian Masse said recently.

Like the old American/Soviet pacts of yore, the action plan contains some 30 “confidence-building” pilot projects that will be rolled out over time, a Washington source briefed on the talks told the Star. They aim to soothe U.S. security anxieties in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks by identifying “trusted” travellers and freight and speeding them across borders that have become sclerotic. The payback could be significant. Trade Minister Ed Fast estimates that a good deal could save businesses $30 billion a year.

Absent any deal, Canada and the U.S. could face ever higher border barriers and more decline in the $650 billion worth of trade we do every year, and the 10 million jobs that ride on it. Harper is right to be making this a priority, especially at a time of global economic uncertainty. Our long-term prosperity depends on it.

Yet a bad deal could see Canada barter away privacy rights, have American police operating here without strict accountability, adopt heavy-handed U.S. policies toward visa- and asylum-seekers, expose travellers to the risk of being wrongly red-flagged as undesirables and dilute Canadian regulatory standards on everything from crash standards for seatbelts and child restraints to food packaging. That’s what 2 in 3 Canadians fear, at any rate. And with some reason.

As Canada’s former envoy to the U.S. Derek Burney put it, “the U.S. priority is security, while the Canadian priority is access.” Reconciling the two won’t be easy. The action plan will take years to implement.

The most worrisome aspect of all this is that neither Parliament nor the public have been consulted in any meaningful way, despite one poll that found that 9 in 10 Canadians wanted the talks conducted in public. There has been no Commons debate. Senior business leaders don’t know the details, and neither does labour. Civil rights groups fear the worst. Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart has urged us to keep “both eyes wide open.” But it’s hard even to know where to look, given the secrecy that has shrouded the negotiations.

Few Canadians are likely to object to the bulk of the action plan, which aims to upgrade infrastructure at the clogged Detroit-Windsor crossing and other choke points. It will also identify “trusted” travellers and shippers. And pre-screen and clear cargo long before it reaches the border. Many Canadians are also prepared, however reluctantly, to submit to retinal scans, fingerprinting and other biometrics if that speeds travel. And who can object to “red-flagging” terrorists, criminals or suspect cargo?

But key aspects that may affect our Charter rights have also been agreed on without any real public input.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others have voiced concern about the proposed “integrated entry-exit system” that will see Canada and the U.S. not only track who comes and goes into their countries, but also share more data than is the case now. U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Alan Bersin says the idea would be to “share alerts and alarms” about “high-risk” people and cargo. But who defines the threats? To the U.S., Maher Arar is still a threat, years after Canada cleared him of any terror links. What controls will there be on the quantity and quality of data that is swapped? Will people be able to see their data, challenge it and correct it if it is wrong? Who will administer all this, and adjudicate disputes? These are questions that Ottawa has yet to answer.

Meanwhile, “the notion that Canada’s trade issues are being addressed in Washington is a joke,” Liberal critic LeBlanc says. The “Buy American” policy is an irritant. So is the delay of the massive Keystone XL pipeline and new border inspection fees. Moreover, it’s an open question whether Ottawa has exacted any assurance that our concessions on security will result in a better traffic flow.

For months, Harper has worried about managing the public reaction – and for good reason. A backlash here could create problems for Obama in an election year by drawing unwanted Republican attention to northern border issues, one Washington observer told the Star. So the deal will be marketed as incremental, not bold, sources say.

Even so, the agreement is bound to face a far tougher grilling from the New Democrats and Liberals than it might have gotten had it been crafted with more political and public input. There will be sharp questions in Parliament and at the Commons foreign affairs committee. The Liberals also intend to meet with affected groups to shed light on who exactly Ottawa consulted in crafting the deal, to identify problems in the pilot projects and to propose fixes.

The Harper government’s disdain for Parliament and its reflexive secrecy got the Conservatives safely past the election, to a majority. But the debate on Canada-U.S. integration can’t be put off forever.

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.